This is the first in a series of articles highlighting the unnecessary suffering caused by rodenticides. In the coming weeks we will outline how poisons affect the whole ecosystem – not just rats and mice – and we will examine how humane alternatives can be used to control rodent populations. We will be making the case for local councils and other public institutions to radically change their approaches to ‘pest’ control in our communities.
Councils across the UK are using inhumane and ineffective rat and mouse poisons as a kneejerk ‘pest control’ solution. In doing so, they are failing in their legal responsibilities under animal welfare legislation.
Over the past six months Protect the Wild has gathered data through hundreds of Freedom of Information requests made to 380 local authorities across Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England. One thing that stood out from these requests is that local councils’ go-to ‘pest management’ solution is poison. However, there are other options available.
Local authorities have a legal responsibility to deal with rodent populations in order to safeguard public health. But this can be achieved through humane solutions like improving waste management to remove potential food sources for rodents, repairing damaged drainage and sewer infrastructure, installing rodent blockers in sewer systems and sealing entry points into buildings.
Humane solutions are not complicated. Proofing a building is straightforward, the results can last for years, and it poses no threat whatsoever to non-target wildlife – who are often inadvertently killed by rodenticide poisons. Controlling waste reduces the food sources that draw rodents to buildings in the first place. Even where rodents remain in the vicinity, a properly proofed building simply keeps them out.
There are companies out there who follow an ethical approach to managing wildlife in public areas. Check out Humane Wildlife Solutions, for example.
A slow, agonising death
Councils across the country responded to our FOI requests, stating that they use Second Generation Anti-Coagulant (SGAR) rodenticide baits to control populations of rats and mice. This is despite the fact that the UK government has stated that these poisons are “markedly inhumane”. Barely any councils indicated that they use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods to tackle rodent populations.
IPM is an approach to pest control that prioritises prevention and long-term solutions over poisoning, and is a requirement when following the ‘pest control’ industry’s own Code of Best Practice.
The Code of Best Practice clearly states:
“Animals should only be harmed when there is no other practical way to protect human health and well-being, and welfare impacts should be minimised wherever possible.”
The current routine use of poisons results in a cruel, agonising death for the animal targeted, and potentially for other animals – including foxes, badgers, owls and other birds of prey – who either directly consume poisons or eat rats or mice who have consumed the baits. SGARs cause intense suffering by triggering internal bleeding which lasts for three to ten days, before eventually killing the animal.
Profit motive
So why are councils not considering cruelty-free solutions instead of poisons? One factor is clearly the demonisation of animals like rats and mice who are labelled as ‘pests’. However, another factor is certainly the profits that can be made from marketing and selling poisons.
Poisons are manufactured and sold by big companies who have a vested interest in the continued use of their products. At the same time, there is an inherent conflict of interest at the heart of the pest control industry: its profitability relies on the problem never going away. A contractor who permanently solves a rat problem will, in effect, be putting themselves out of work. Meanwhile, rodenticide manufacturers – and their distributors – rake in the money as baits are laid repeatedly, never solving the actual issue.
Councils have a legal obligation to consider animal welfare
Councils are not free to kill animals that they deem as pests by whatever means they choose. They are bound by legal obligations that demand consideration of animal welfare.
Protect the Wild sought advice from Lawyers for Animals, who stated:
“Animals commonly labelled as pests (rats, mice, wasps, grey squirrels, pigeons, moles, gulls, etc.) are not excluded from legal protection simply because they are ‘pests’…
Some statutes impose duties to control, but do not authorise cruelty or unnecessary suffering.
There is no general ‘pest exemption’ from animal welfare law.”
Councils are obliged to consider animal welfare legislation before poisoning rats and mice. Section 4 of the 2006 Animal Welfare Act criminalises causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
Rats and mice can be “protected animals” when they are under the control of humans (e.g. when they are trapped, poisoned or contained).
“Necessary suffering” is assessed by:
- Legitimate purpose (e.g. pest control),
- Proportionality,
- Availability of less harmful alternatives,
- Whether the method is humane and evidence-based.
‘Pest control’ alone does not justify causing suffering or divest councils of their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act. Right now, local authorities in the UK are failing to consider the alternatives to poisons. In doing so, they are leaving themselves open to legal challenges, regulatory enforcement, judicial reviews or even prosecutions.
Our demand: An immediate end to rodenticide use
Protect the Wild is demanding a complete and immediate ban on the use of rodenticide bait by councils.
- Rodenticides are killing non-target wildlife: Poison bait placed outside does not and cannot discriminate between target and non-target species. Killing protected wildlife is a crime.
- Rodenticides are causing unnecessary suffering: The slow, agonising death inflicted by SGARs – internal bleeding over many days – may itself constitute an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibits the causing of unnecessary suffering to animals.
- Councils are already legally obliged to do better: Existing legislation, as well as the pest control industry’s guidelines, require that preventative methods such as rodent proofing and prevention measures are exhausted before any rodenticide is used. The routine use of poison bait as a first resort is likely unlawful.
As animal rights advocates, we urgently need to step up efforts to stop the silent killing of our wildlife by SGARs and other poisons. We need to make our case loudly and set out the alternatives clearly. The routine use of lethal poisons causes immeasurable suffering and it needs to stop.
Header image by David Atkins